DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/305,969 filed 4/24/2023.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179), further in view of Shibayama et al. (US Patent 11,762,729).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179), further in view of Si et al. (US Patent 2023/0080654).
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional application 63/334,527 filed 4/25/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/24/2023 has been fully considered, initialed, and signed by the Examiner. A copy is attached to this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not of sufficient quality because not all of the letters, numbers, and reference numbers are clear and legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 250 at para. 0061, 500 at para. 0070, 921 at para. 0105. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 7-720; 8-720, 9-922. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 0114 references an Appendix A, but no such appendix seems to exist in the application file.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for minor informalities.
In claim 1, second limitation, “… a set of parameters corresponding outlier data event scenarios...” seems like it should be “… a set of parameters corresponding to outlier data event scenarios…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “likely” in the last limitation. The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the term “likely”. The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the term “potentially” in the last limitation. The term “potentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “potentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the term “likely”. The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of: (1) receiving source data reflecting data-events, wherein the source data comprises data-event attributes and corresponding attribute values characterizing the data-events, (2) receiving user-intent data, wherein the user-intent data identifies potential causes and a set of parameters corresponding outlier data event scenarios for consideration, (3) instantiate a plurality of linksets of an ontological model in an in-memory neural network based on the user-intent data, the ontological model, and the source data, (4) wherein the instantiated linksets comprises a tailored array of interconnected index tables that defines the ontological relationship between the potential causes, the set of parameters, data-event attributes corresponding to the set of parameters, and neutrosophic rules corresponding to the potential causes and the set of parameters, (5) indexing the data-events of the source data so as to generate an index class of indexed data-events, wherein the index class links each indexed data-event to the instantiated data-event attributes corresponding to the instantiated parameters via corresponding attribute values of the indexed data-events, (6) supplementing the index class with additional data-event attributes corresponding to repeating attribute values of the indexed data-events, and (7) neutrosophically analyzing the index class according to the neutrosophic rules of the instantiated linkset, so as to thereby detect whether outlier data-event scenarios are likely caused by one or more of the potential causes defined by the instantiated linkset, wherein the outlier data-event scenarios are defined by respective sets of data-event attributes.
Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The mental process grouping covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III).
Limitations can also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitations (1) and (2) are directed to IESA in the form of data gathering or receiving data over a network. Limitation (3) is directed to a step of instantiation of linksets in an in-memory neural network. The in-memory neural network is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide meaningful limits on the abstract idea. The step of instantiation itself, is directed to a mental step that can be performed by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool. The limitation does not put limits on the ontological model or how it is instantiated that would make it impractical or impossible for a person to perform with the aid of a computer as a tool. Limitation (4) is directed to limitations that describe the linksets used instantiation, which amounts to IESA in the form of specifying or selecting a type of data for processing or manipulation. Limitation (5) is directed to a step of indexing data events to generate an index, which is a mental step that can be practically performed by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool. Limitation (6) is directed to a supplementing step, which is a mental step that can also be performed by a person with the aid of a computer as a tool. The limitation does not recite specific requirements on how the supplementing is performed. Limitation (7) is directed to a mental step of analyzing the index class according to rules, which requires the steps of evaluation and judgment. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “analyzing” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
As noted above, the recited in memory neural network is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic components performing generic computer functions.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In this case, as explained above, claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Limitations (1), (2), and (4) are directed to IESA. Limitations (3) and (5) through (7) are directed to mental steps. None of these limitations recite specifics that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. At best, these limitations provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, such as the in-memory neural network. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the claim recites no details about a particular in memory neural network. The in memory neural network is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the in memory neural network. In addition, the limitations would cover every mode of implementing the recited abstract idea using a in memory neural network. The claim omits any details as to how the in memory neural network or any of the recited limitations solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While claim 1 recite additional components in the form of the in-memory neural network, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, claim 1 does not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, limitations (3) and (5) through (7), at best, are mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (1) and (2) are directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, which are well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Limitation (4) is directed to selecting or specifying a type of data to be processed or manipulated, which is IESA and cannot provide an inventive step. MPEP 2106.05(g). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is nonstatutory because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 2
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 2 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the neutrosophic rules consider attribute value reoccurrence rates for truth membership with respect to the potential causes. The limitation merely describe the rules being used, which is essentially IESA in the form of specifying/selecting the type of data being processed or manipulated. MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 2 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 3
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 3 recites the additional limitations of (1) generating the ontological model from linkset data, wherein the linkset data identifies potential causes of outlier data-event scenarios and, for each potential cause, identifies one or more data-event scenarios, and further identifies one or more rules for determining which of the potential causes are likely causes of the outlier data-event scenarios. These additional limitations are directed to a mental step of generating an ontological model from the linkset data and specifying the type of data to be manipulated and processed. The mental step of generating the ontological model is not claimed with any specific limitations regarding how the model is generated. The specifying of what the linkset data represents merely specifies the type of data that is being processed or manipulated, which is IESA. MPEP 2106.05(g). The generating is not recited with specifics that adequately demonstrate any asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 4
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 4 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the index class is supplemented with additional data-event attributes that are fuzzy-logic identified data-event attributes potentially indicative of potential causes. The limitation is directed to IESA of specifying the type of data that is being manipulated or processed. MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 4 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 5
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 5 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the neutrosophic analysis determines which data-event attributes, if any, are neutrosophically independent variables with respect to each of the potential causes and (2) wherein neutrosophically analyzing the index class includes neutrosophically analyzing the set of outlier data-events via the detail class. Limitation (1) is directed to a step of determining, which is a mental step involving steps of evaluation and judgment. Limitation (2) is directed to a step of analysis, which is a mental step involving steps of evaluation and judgment. Neither limitation recites specific steps and limitations that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 6
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 6 recites the additional limitations of (1) wherein the potential causes are neutrosophically dependent variables and (2) wherein the neutrosophic analysis determines which data-event attributes, if any, are neutrosophically independent variables with respect to each of the potential causes. Limitation (1) is directed to IESA of specifying the type of data to be manipulated/processed. Limitation (2) is directed to a step of analysis, which is a mental step of evaluation and judgment. However, it does not recite specifics of how such analysis and determination is performed that would make it impossible or impractical for a person to perform. It also does not recite specific limitations that adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 7
Pursuant to step 2A, part 1, claim 7 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Pursuant to step 2A, part 2, claim 7 recites the additional limitations of generating a causality report that identifies the outlier data-event scenarios detected as likely caused by one or more of the potential causes. These additional limitations are directed to a mental step of creating a causality report, which can be performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper. The limitations do not recite specific steps of how the report is generated or any other specifics that would adequately demonstrate an asserted improvement. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Pursuant to step 2B, for at least the same reasons discussed, these additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the rejection.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) (Wang) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179) (Iwamura).
In regards to claim 1, Wang discloses a method for automatically detecting causes of outlier data-event scenarios, the method comprising:
receiving source data reflecting data-events, wherein the source data comprises data-event attributes and corresponding attribute values characterizing the data-events (Wang at paras. 0043-44, 0048)1;
receiving user-intent data, wherein the user-intent data identifies potential causes and a set of parameters corresponding outlier data event scenarios for consideration (Wang at paras. 0039-40)2;
instantiate a plurality of linksets of an ontological model in an in-memory neural network based on the user-intent data, the ontological model, and the source data (Wang at paras. 0027, 0050-55)3,
wherein the instantiated linksets comprises a tailored array of interconnected index tables that defines the ontological relationship between the potential causes, the set of parameters, data-event attributes corresponding to the set of parameters, and neutrosophic rules corresponding to the potential causes and the set of parameters (Wang at paras. 0050-55, 0066)4;
indexing the data-events of the source data so as to generate an index class of indexed data-events, wherein the index class links each indexed data-event to the instantiated data-event attributes corresponding to the instantiated parameters via corresponding attribute values of the indexed data-events (Wang at paras. 0054, 0066-67, 0099-100)5;
neutrosophically analyzing the index class according to the neutrosophic rules of the instantiated linkset, so as to thereby detect whether outlier data-event scenarios are likely caused by one or more of the potential causes defined by the instantiated linkset, wherein the outlier data-event scenarios are defined by respective sets of data-event attributes. Wang at paras. 0066-67.6
Wang does not expressly disclose supplementing the index class with additional data-event attributes corresponding to repeating attribute values of the indexed data-events.
Iwamura discloses a system and method for failure isolation and failure cause analysis. Iwamura at abstract. The method includes analysis that determines that a particular includes analyzing root cause event numbers to determine appearance frequency (i.e., repeated attribute values of the indexed data events) and adding a frequency field to the table (i.e., supplementing the index class with additional data event attributes). Iwamura at paras. 0201-203.
Wang and Iwamura are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of cause analysis.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding the features of supplementing the index class with additional data-event attributes corresponding to repeating attribute values of the indexed data-events, as disclosed by Iwamura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize the additional frequency attribute as a way to classify events and prioritize analysis. Iwamura at paras. 0204-205.
In regards to claim 2, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the neutrosophic rules consider attribute value reoccurrence rates for truth membership with respect to the potential causes. Wang at para. 0058-59, 0061, 0071.7
In regards to claim 3, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the ontological model from linkset data, wherein the linkset data identifies potential causes of outlier data-event scenarios and, for each potential cause, identifies one or more data-event scenarios, and further identifies one or more rules for determining which of the potential causes are likely causes of the outlier data-event scenarios. Wang at paras. 0050-57, 0066.8
In regards to claim 4, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the index class is supplemented with additional data-event attributes that are fuzzy-logic identified data-event attributes potentially indicative of potential causes. Wang at paras. 0120-121.9
In regards to claim 7, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a causality report that identifies the outlier data-event scenarios detected as likely caused by one or more of the potential causes. Wang at para. 0041.10
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) (Wang) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179) (Iwamura), further in view of Shibayama et al. (US Patent 11,762,729) (Shibayama).
In regards to claim 5, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising:
determining a set of outlier data-events from among the indexed data-events based on the attribute values of the indexed data-events and parameters of the instantiated linkset, so as to generate a detail class reflecting the indexed data-events whose attribute values satisfy the instantiated parameters,
wherein neutrosophically analyzing the index class includes neutrosophically analyzing the set of outlier data-events via the detail class.
Shibayama discloses a system and method for anomaly detection and evaluation. The method includes comparing metrics and operation information (i.e., attributes and attribute values) with reference to operating ranges (i.e., parameters) to narrow down the potential causes (i.e., determining a set of outlier data events …). These narrowed down causes and anomalies are then analyzed (i.e., analyzing the set of outlier data events via the detail class). Shibayama at col. 21, lines 36-50, 62-67; col. 22, lines 1-25.
Wang, Iwamura, and Shibayama are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of cause analysis.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Iwamura by adding the features of determining a set of outlier data-events from among the indexed data-events based on the attribute values of the indexed data-events and parameters of the instantiated linkset, so as to generate a detail class reflecting the indexed data-events whose attribute values satisfy the instantiated parameters, wherein neutrosophically analyzing the index class includes neutrosophically analyzing the set of outlier data-events via the detail class, as disclosed by Shibayama.
The motivation would have been reduce the number of assumed causes that need to be analyzed. Shibayama at col. 22, lines 15-19.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0306201) (Wang) in view of Iwamura et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0099179) (Iwamura), further in view of Si et al. (US Patent 2023/0080654) (Si).
In regards to claim 6, Wang in view of Iwamura discloses the method of claim 1, does not expressly disclose wherein the potential causes are neutrosophically dependent variables, and wherein the neutrosophic analysis determines which data-event attributes, if any, are neutrosophically independent variables with respect to each of the potential causes.
Si discloses a system and method for causality detection for outlier events in telemetry data. Si at para. 0016. The method includes utilizing an event causality model to identify causality chains. In other words, for an outlier, the system determines which events are part of a causal chain causing an outlier (i.e., dependent variables) and also determines event types, which are independent of events with respect to a potential cause. Si at para. 0061.
Wang, Iwamura, and Si are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor of causal analysis.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Iwamura by adding the features of wherein the potential causes are neutrosophically dependent variables, and wherein the neutrosophic analysis determines which data-event attributes, if any, are neutrosophically independent variables with respect to each of the potential causes, as disclosed by Si.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to skip events identified as independent of a particular cause event. Si at paras. 0061-62.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Weider et al. (US Patent Pub 2021/0397500) discloses a system and method for automated root cause analysis for distributed systems.
Schein et al. (US Patent Pub 2023/0207123) discloses a system and method for machine learning approach to detect data discrepancies.
Mdini et al. (US Patent 11,138,163) discloses a system and method for automatic root cause diagnosis.
Gefen et al. (US Patent Pub 2019/0228296) discloses a system and method for significant events identifiers for outlier root cause investigation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 Messages are monitored as they are received by the network management system. Messages include attributes and corresponding attribute values (i.e., data event attributes and values).
2 A user interface allows user input (i.e., receiving user-intent data), which identifies information regarding root causes (i.e., potential causes) and includes information that includes symptoms, diagnostic information, and corrective information (i.e., set of parameters corresponding outlier data event scenarios for consideration).
3 A machine learning model (i.e., in memory neural network) is used to analyze data comprising the received data (i.e., source data), using its training data (i.e., user-intent data), and the tables corresponding to relationships between faults (i.e., outliers), root causes, and their potential solutions that can be cross referenced with each other (i.e., ontological model).
4 Wang discloses a series of tables that can be cross referenced (i.e., interconnected index tables) that define the relationships between components, root causes, faults, etc. (i.e., ontological relationship). Here, the criterion and determination of a probability/confidence of a fault being associated with a particular root cause are interpreted as neutrosophic rules.
5 Monitored data (i.e., data events of the source data) are classified (i.e., indexed … so as to generate an index class). The classification links the monitored data (i.e., indexed data event) to root causes and criterion based on its attributes.
6 Monitored data is analyzed based on the tables and corresponding criterion for a particular operating parameter values(i.e., data event attribute/value) to determine root causes and their probability (i.e., one or more potential causes).
7 The error rate of a particular metric (i.e., reoccurrence rate) is analyzed to determine whether a cause and its corresponding solution/action are correct (i.e., considered .. for truth membership).
8 The series of tables, which can be cross referenced, identify possible causes for faults (i.e., outlier scenarios). Each cause has types of faults associated with it through the output table. The tables further include criterion to determine probability of a cause being the root cause of a fault (i.e., rules for determining …).
9 If a root cause confidence level is below a threshold, additional debugging information is collected (i.e., index class is supplemented with additional data event attributes). The new information is potentially indicative of the cause or another cause after re-estimating confidence values for previously identified causes (fuzzy logic identified data event attributes potentially indicative of potential causes).
10 A defect report (i.e., causality report) is populated with information such as measured parameters and information from the diagnostic process (i.e., identifiers outlier data event scenarios …).